Revenue forecast

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful traits: the forecast is 'expected' rather than actual, it aggregates by calendar month and currency, it draws from 'every active schedule', and it varies by plan tier. It does not mention return format or error behavior, but the core behavioral scope and limitations are conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose and output granularity are front-loaded, and the plan limitation is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the result contains, the data source, the time horizon, and plan-based limits. It lacks explicit mention of the response structure or error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that agents have sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents months as an integer with min, max, and default. The description adds valuable plan-dependent semantics: Free accounts are limited to 3 months while Pro allows up to 120. This helps an agent decide whether a requested months value is feasible before calling.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as producing expected invoiced revenue per calendar month per currency, with the scope being active schedules. This is more specific than a bare restatement of the title, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close sibling tools like invoice_summary or overdue_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no direct 'use this when' guidance, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The Free/Pro month limits imply some usage constraints, but there is no explicit advice on when to choose this tool over its finance-focused siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.